Rehan Sheikh v. Cisco Systems, Inc. , 472 F. App'x 787 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 26 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    REHAN SHEIKH,                                     No. 10-17684
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 5:07-cv-00262-RMW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 17, 2012 **
    Before:        LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    Rehan Sheikh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    without prejudice his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Ash v. Cvetkov, 
    739 F.2d 493
    , 495 (9th Cir. 1984), and we affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sheikh’s action
    without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Sheikh failed to act on the district
    court’s order granting a motion to compel arbitration, and failed to reasonably
    explain his inaction. See 
    id. at 496-97
     (discussing factors to guide the court’s
    decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).
    Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we
    do not consider Sheikh’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See
    Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 
    78 F.3d 1381
    , 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (after dismissal for
    failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appealable regardless of whether
    the failure to prosecute was purposeful).
    Sheikh’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    10-17684
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-17684

Citation Numbers: 472 F. App'x 787

Judges: Bea, Leavy, Paez

Filed Date: 4/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023